CANADA WATER CONSULTATIVE FORUM
DRAFT
NOTES OF MEETING
CANADA WATER CONSULTATIVE FORUM
19th November 2001
VENUE: ALFRED SALTER SCHOOL
ATTENDEES
David Brunskill (DB) Lisa Hollamby (LH) Gary Glover (GG)
Pauline Adenwalla (PA) Noel Ashton (NA) Peter Brooks (PB)
Conrad Hollingsworth (CH) Simon Phippen (SP) Stephen Platts (SP)
Ian Owers (IO) Simon Hodge (SH) Chris Horn (CH)
Janet Hodge (JH) Adam Faulkner (AF) Claire Davis (CD)
Alastair Macalpine (AM) Pascale Rosenbloom (PR) Jackie Rose (JR)
Danny McCarthy (DM) Andrew Cook (AC) Donald Hanciles (DH)
APOLOGIES Cllr Lancashire, Rev Andrew Doyle
ACTION POINT – AF to circulate Downtown Brief when available
ACTION POINT – LBS to reduce Topic Papers to Bullet points for next meeting
ACTION POINT – LBS to co-ordinate the
arrangement of the next meeting
ACTION POINT – PR provide copy of Civic Trust report to Forum when available
Meeting opened by chair 7:10pm
With no local Councillors available the Forum was in-quorate,
the Chair asked the Forum if it would like to proceed with the
meeting or reschedule.
Following a discussion it was decided that there was a benefit in
continuing with the meeting especially to provide feedback on the
Topic Papers, the Forum decided to continue with some sections of
the agenda.
Could not be agreed.
Matters Arising
N/A
Admin Staff - Introduction
Chair introduced and welcomed Jackie Rose to the Forum, the role will commence on 3rd December 2001.
Topic Paper - Discussion
Comments from DM regarding the use of technical
language, the papers, especially the Built Environment paper
needs to be written in simple English so comments can be made.
Built Environment :-
Vision not incorporated
Carparking Provision Issues as people are very attached to their
cars in the area
Too technical
Too lengthy
Community Facilities and Leisure
The paper is in its fourth draft, and will be revised again to include comments from LBS Leisure Dept.
Housing :-
Emphasis should be on high % of affordable, in the bigger unit
sizes.
Issues of parking provisions should be covered.
Losing young people due to the cost of housing, maybe high
density flats could cater for that problem.
Education :-
Discussion surrounding the Paterson Park, City Academy. If it
gets caught up in the planning process is there a risk the
Academy will be lost ? Could these sites be put forward as an
alternative so the opportunity is not lost. CH explained that due
to the Underground Station at Canada Water and new Academy in
this location would not assist the Borough, as students from
outside could attend. Need to watch how the application proceeds
and direct the education paper accordingly.
Transport :-
Issues with congestion on Lower Road and the Rotherhithe Tunnel
needs to be considered.
Congestion Charging Zone - impacts on parking in the area.
Consideration of Controlled Parking Zone options for the area.
Could be problem with the private squares and Closes in terms of
patrolling.
Access points to the peninsula need to be looked at.
Cycle routes are established but need to have better lighting and
safety.
Capacity of Jubilee line and extension of the East London line
need to be considered.
Economic Development :-
BH suggested that he will be able to finalise the paper with the
Officers he has dealt with in the past.
Social Inclusion :-
No additions or comments
General :-
Papers need to be shortened into bullet points, covering issues
the Forum wish to have addressed by the developers making
submissions in response to the brief. The papers need to be
shortened and the language needs to be simplified, the general
London Wide context can be removed from individual papers and set
out in a separate document, so the emphasis in the Topic Papers
remains focused on the Local issues.
Development Brief
Forum felt it did not have enough time to consider the contents of the circulated document and so they should be able to take it away and discuss it at the next meeting.
Issues surrounding delivery of a masterplan
scheme were discussed and CH confirmed that LBS would consider
the use of CPO to deliver on a scheme, as it has in the past. CH
also confirmed that no threat of CPO has been made to any
existing occupier or freeholder in relation to the core
development area.
On issues of process, SP outlined that by early next year they
will be marketing to invite expressions of interest for the
Council’s land, which will initially be assessed by such
things as a team’s track record, financial stability etc.
From this a list of 10-12 teams will be short listed and the
Brief will be released to them somewhere around April next year.
Vision for Canada Water
Not discussed.
Consultation Activities
Agreement that the use of a delivery agency was
not a workable solution. After a number of options were outlined
by PR, the Forum recommendation was to use the postal service. CH
suggested that if LBS are to spend the money on postage, then
this should really be a Community led newsletter and the Forum
needs to be more involved in it’s drafting. GG suggested
formation of an Editorial body from within the Forum. PR reminded
the forum that the invitation to join an editorial board has been
made several times, and that PA and CD had volunteered to assist.
The Chair invited interest, GG volunteered. PR asked that anyone
else who was interested should email her directly. Other comments
regarding the other documents that are delivered to houses on the
peninsula, maybe could tie into that delivery for better coverage.
Chair acknowledged that he had received a formal apology from SP regarding the wording in the newsletter.
The proof draft of the Civic Trust report should be available by
Friday, so discussion can follow from that. PR outlined that all
material from the events will be retained by the Council for
reference, and will also be available for public reference. There
will not be the opportunity for the forum to feed their suggested
amendments to the Civic Trust. PR suggested that if people had
comments they forward them to her, and she will attach them to
the report as an appendix where appropriate.
Process and Timing
Discussed in Item 6.
Update on Planning Applications
Andy Cook and Donald Hanciles were present to
go though the applications.
Site D Residential scheme - will go to Development Control
Committee in December with recommendation for approval.
Site E Telehotel/Office scheme - will go to Development Control
Committee in January with recommendation for approval.
Site E Full Office scheme - needs further
discussion with regard to height but it is envisaged that
agreement will be possible and so that will go to Development
Control Committee in January with recommendation for approval.
Issues raised by the Forum in terms of compliance with UDP,
especially with regard to height. Planning officers seem to apply
the central government guidance when it benefits (i.e. Height)
and seems to stick with the UDP when it suits (i.e. Affordable
Housing).
Andy Cook suggested that the current applications are not outside
the limits of the current UDP in planning terms.
Further comments with regard to waiting for the
new masterplan is adopted, Andy Cook again addressed the issue
pointing out that the planning department must consider
applications in a reasonable time, as the agreement of a
masterplan is quite a long way off at this stage, waiting is not
an option.
Can consultation be done via email ?? It is possible however the plans that attach are not in an email-able form at this stage.
Downtown
AF confirmed to the meeting that the brief for Downtown will be available shortly and that it will be circulated to the Forum and via the campaign website. Discussion can follow at the next Forum meeting if necessary.
AOB
Next meeting
Follow up meeting in 3 weeks time, LBS
Agenda 10 December Return to Bulletin 30